Box Turtle Bulletin

“Disney Elevates Homosexual”

That’s the headline the American Family Association plastered above their post about Disney’s naming Rich Ross as studio chief. Ross was awarded his position after having revived the Disney Channel. I guess he’s gay and doesn’t want to live in the closet, which is an unforgivable affront to these people. And not hiding in the closet is what makes him an “activist” according to Peter LaBarbera:

“The sad reality is that whenever you see a homosexual activist at the top, nine times out of ten they end up pushing that gay agenda using their influence to push it wherever they can,” states LaBarbera.

“It’s the way the homosexual movement ends up influencing the country far beyond its tiny numbers,” he explains. “They get in key positions of power, and then they use that power to advance their agenda.”

A man does his job well and is rewarded for it, but anti-gay activists see it as “pushing that gay agenda.” I smell a boycott. Imagine the outcry if he had been named to a post in the Department of Education or something.

Anti-Gay Roundup on Obama at HRC: “He Will Lose His Soul To Damnation”

While I’m still disappointed in the President, I liked the speech for the reasons listed here. But I left out a reason: President Barack Obama’s remarks before the Human Rights Campaign have anti-gay activists in a tizzy. For example:

Peter LaBarbera: “Obama\’s Expanding Anti-Christian Agenda… President Obama used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator, by brazenly declaring before a homosexual activist audience that homosexuality-based relationships are ‘just as real and admirable’ as normal relationships between a man and a woman..”

Family “Research” Council: “President Obama Ignores Election Mandate, Pushes Radical Social Policies”

Maine pastor Grant Swank: “Because of his double-tongued speech, he is not of the God of the Bible but of the demonic. There is no in-between. One is either in league with the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit. …He will lose his soul to damnation if he continues on that course.”

The Peter Discovers Bisexuals

That’s right. There are bisexuals among us. And Peter LaBarbera found a “homosexual newspaper” that was willing to admit it. One can only guess what Peter thought the “B” in LGBT stood for. At any rate, it seems he’s still struggling with the concept. His headline? “Half of Homosexuals Are Bisexual”.

Follow Up on Brett Vanasdlen

During the attention given to the debate in Congress over the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill, I was reminded of the story of Brett Vanasdlen, the young man in Champaign, Illinois, who was charged with a hate crime in 2008.

We reported the story, but we didn’t fully follow up. Here’s where we left it:

• Stephen Velasquez was walking with friends at 1:00 am. Another young man, Brett Vanasdlen, saw him and made a bigoted remark.
• According to Velasquez, he responded, “How ignorant was that?” and kept walking. According to Vanasdlen, Velasquez grabbed him and started screaming, “What did you say” in his face.
• In both stories, Vanasdlen threw Velasquez to the ground where he was knocked out, suffered head trauma, and was taken to the hospital.
• Vanasdlen was arrested and charged with a hate crime.
• Vanasdlen’s mother appealed to Anti-Semite Ted Pike and former KKK leader David Dukes for support and they ran her version of events on Dukes’ white supremacist website. Peter LaBarbera picked up the story from them (changing Pike to a “pro-family activist”) and sold it to conservative circles. The story spread as an example of how a conservative Christian “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” was victimized by a homosexual with brown skin through the use of hate crimes legislation.

White supremacists and anti-Semites throughout the country began including Vanasdlen as an example of the current indignities suffered by the “white race”. Anti-gay religious groups used it as an example of why gay people should not be protected by hate crimes.

Peter LaBarbera was probably most vocal about this story. And he was quite critical of the skepticism expressed by those of us who doubted Vanasdlen’s saintliness.

We\’ll see how this story plays out as Tim, ExGayWatch, BTB, Pam and the rest of the “queer” spin machine so eagerly paint a false picture of young Brett as a violent “gay basher” to further their misguided crusade.

Peter pledged to one and all that “AFTAH will be following this case closely.”

So today I turned to LaBarbera’s site to see whatever happened to Brett Vanasdlen and his campaign to clear his name. But I found nothing. No mention at all of the outcome.

So what happened? Did the courts clear him? Did witnesses come forward to declare that the “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” had actually been the victim and brown homosexual Velasquez was the “the real aggressor“?

Well, no.

On September 9, 2008 Brett Vanasdlen pled guilty to battery and the hate crime charge was dropped.

Defendant ordered to pay restitution in the amount to be determined at a later date.
Sentence: 09/08/2008
Sentence: Fines and/or Cost/Penalties and Fees
Sentence: Court Supervision 24Mos Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Anti-Crime Assessment Fee
Sentence: Public Service 200Hrs Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Substance Abuse Treatment/Evaluation 60Days
Sentence: Partner Abuse Intervention Program 60Days
Sentence: Count(s) dismissed.

I guess it’s no wonder that LaBarbera kept silent about the resolution to this case. Martyrs are much less effective when they plead guilty.

Welcome to My Fraudulent Religion, Please Pay Tithes

In a moment of bitter spitefulness, Peter LaBarbera sent an email to Jeremy Hooper, our friend who humorously tracks (and mocks) the nuttiness that is the hallmark of anti-gay activism at his site GoodAsYou.org:

After offering his ill-wishes for Jeremy’s upcoming wedding (yes, really), LaBarbera takes a swipe at gay Christians:

Homosexual behavior is always wrong, which is why the phrase “gay Christian” is so odd. Attaching it to the noble institution of marriage only compounds the sin. Just remember that it\’s never to late to repent of this behavior, to humble yourself and embrace Jesus Christ through faith – and move on with your life in a way that is pleasing to God. Tim Kincaid\’s pro-“gay” version of (c)hristianity is a fraud – don\’t believe it. God bless.

Wait, what?

I have my own fraudulent pro-“gay” version of (c)hristianity? Where’s my mega-church? When do I get to buy three mansions and a lear jet?

But no. Alas. I’ve not started my own religion – with or without odd spelling and scare quotes. I just report my observations on the scholarly work of others, the conflict between Christ’s commandments to love and anti-gay theology’s political campaigns to make the lives of gay people more difficult, and the ever growing movement towards full inclusion of gay men and women into the life of the mainstream Christian church.

However, if you feel the need to send tithes to me, I won’t argue with you.

MAINE GETS MARRIAGE

Governor Balducci signed the marriage bill.

From the San Jose Mercury News (who, for some reason reported the story first)

Gov. John Baldacci has signed a bill making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage.

Earlier in the day, the Maine Legislature gave final approval to gay marriage and sent the bill to Baldacci, who had been undecided on the issue.

What Happens Next

If this were a bill without opposition, it would come into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session. However Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council, has already announced that he will seek a “people’s veto” of the legislation.

A people’s veto works like this: After the end of the legislative session (probably some time in June), Heath can begin collecting signatures. He needs 10% of the last gubernatorial vote, or 55,087 valid signatures. If Heath gets enough signatures, the bill will not go into effect until it has been presented on the November ballot for an up or down vote. Yes means keep the bill, No means veto it.

Although Heath will have 90 days to collect signatures, he must present the signatures no later than 60 days before the vote, around September 3rd. Thus, may be a strange window in which signatures can be collected but in which they will not count towards forcing a vote.

Which raises a question. Were Heath to present signatures on, say, September 5 and were that day within 90 days of the end of the legislative session, would that place a stay on the enactment of the bill until the following election in the spring of 2010? While that might be a “dirty trick” that could momentarily work in Heath’s favor, it may in the long run prove to be detrimental. As time goes by, it is increasingly likely that attitudes in Maine will favor equality. This will be especially true as no dire consequences result in Vermont, Connecticut, or Massachusetts. Heath’s window of possible success may close.

As it is, Heath may have a rough go. Attitudes seem fairly even in Maine but Heath has a rather bad reputation in the state dating from his attempts to identify and out gay legislators. His requests for “tips, rumors, speculation and facts” resulted in a temporary ouster from the Christian Civic League (a previous name of the Maine Family Policy Council) and a significant amount of bad press.

Heath may well be an advantage for us. He tends towards extremism and outrageous hyperbole. Additionally, it looks as though Peter LaBarbera may be a part of the effort.

Day of Silence and Various Responses

In an effort to reduce bullying and to encourage tolerance, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network created a program called The Day of Silence in which students show their sympathy for harassed gay students by pledging to be silent for a day. Those who “oppose the homosexual agenda” have responded in a number of ways.

I will briefly compare the various responses:

DAY OF SILENCE

Sponsor: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network

Participants: Hundreds of thousands of students in over 8,000 schools

Purpose: The Day of Silence\’s purpose is to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment and effective responses.

Date: Friday, April 17, 2009

Length of Program: Thirteenth year

Process: Participants take a day long vow of silence and distribute or wear speaking cards with information about anti-LGBT bias and ways for students and others to “end the silence.” Through Breaking the Silence events, which are typically held at the end of the school day, students can speak out against harassment and demand change for their schools and communities. Students do speak when required by class participation.

Message: What are you doing to end the Silence?

Handout:

Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence (DOS), a national youth movement bringing attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by anti-LGBT bullying, name-calling and harassment. I believe that ending the silence is the fi rst step toward building awareness and making a commitment to address these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today.

What are you going to do to end the Silence?

Response to Objection: In high schools, approval from the principal or other appropriate staff is important when student organizers are working on any project. When approaching your school’s administration, it helps to have the backing of a student club and its advisor(s). If your administration does not approve of or support the Day of Silence, you may want to consider planning a community event outside of school, in the morning or evening.

Theme: To draw attention to the abuse or bullying of GLBT people who are often silenced by social disapproval and unable to defend themselves alone.

DAY OF TRUTH

Sponsor: Created by the Alliance Defense Fund. Currently administered by ex-gay group Exodus International.

Participants: Up to 13,000 students

Length of Program: Fifth year

Stated Purpose: The Day of Truth was established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective. (It is a direct response to the Day of Silence).

Date: The Day of Truth is scheduled for April 20, 2009. This is three days after GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) will sponsor the “Day of Silence.”

Process: Participating students are encouraged to wear Day of Truth T-shirts, pass out cards, tell students about the evils of homosexuality, and inform same-sex attracted students about reorientation programs.

Message: It\’s time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There\’s freedom to change if you want to. The truth cannot be silenced.

Handout:

I’m speaking the Truth to break the silence.
True tolerance means that people with differing — even opposing — viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other.
It’s time for an honest conversation about homosexuality.
There’s freedom to change if you want to.
Let\’s talk.

Response to Objection: If the principal or other school official asks you to stop, stop immediately. Please call 1-800-TELL-ADF so that we can help resolve the situation quickly.

Theme: Rather than encourage gay-specific anti-bullying programs, gay students should be encouraged to enter ex-gay programs.

‘DAY OF SILENCE’ WALK OUT

Sponsor: A long list of anti-gay activist groups including Americans for Truth (Peter LaBarbera), Liberty Counsel (Matt Barber), Mission: America (Linda Harvey), and SPLC-listed hate groups MassResistance, Illinois Family Institute (Laurie Higgins), and Abiding Truth Ministries (Scott Lively).

Participants: unknown number of parents. In 2008, 600 students were kept home from a school in Washington

Length of Program: uncertain, perhaps second year

Stated Purpose: To actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes and no longer passively accept the political usurpation of taxpayer funded public school classrooms through student silence

Date: April 17, 2009, the same day as the Day of Silence

Process: Parents are encouraged to express their opposition to the Day of Silence by calling their children out of school on that day and sending letters of explanation to their administrators, their children’s teachers, and all school board members.

Public school teachers are encouraged to plan activities for this day that involve student speech: Schedule speeches or oral exams; ask questions; or plan discussion-based activities
that require participation from all students.

Church leadership is encouraged to follow the bold example of Pastor Ken Hutcherson who vocally opposed the “Day of Silence” in his community in Redmond, Washington. (Hutcherson is threatening to oppose school bonds if Mt. Si allows students to participate in the Day of Silence again this year).

Message: Students being silent is disruptive and ought not be tolerated.

Handout: none indicated.

Response to Objection: Explain that school districts lose money for every absence, which may help convince administrations and school boards that it is not merely unethical but fiscally irresponsible to allow the classroom to be used for political purposes.

Theme: Fighting the homosexual agenda.

GOLDEN RULE PLEDGE

Sponsor: Dr. Warren Throckmorton, with some support from Campus Crusade for Christ Regional Director, Michael Frey and Bob Stith, National Strategist for Gender Issues, Southern Baptist Convention.

Length of Program: Second year

Stated Purpose: To provide a response for Christian and conservative students who do not affirm homosexual behavior but also loathe disrespect, harassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers.

Date: April 17, 2009, the same day as the Day of Silence

Process: To answer the Day of Silence\’s question with a commitment the safety of GLBT students and peers as well as other who appear different based on the teachings of Christ.

A variety of options exist on the DOS, including silence. Whatever option one chooses, we do not encourage protests, divisive actions or criticism of others. One way to live out our faith is to treat others fairly and with respect.

Message: Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31).

Handout:

This is what I\’m doing:
I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.
Will you join me in this pledge?
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31).

Response to Objection: None indicated.

Theme: To draw attention to the appropriate response of Christians when they are asked for respect and protection.

UPDATE: The previous version listed Americans for Truth (Peter LaBarbera) as a hate group and did not list Illinois Family Institute (Laurie Higgins) as such. These have now been reversed.

Wingers On Parade: Reactions To Vermont

We did this following the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Now it’s time to look at reactions to the Vermont legislature’s decision to allow same-sex marriage. Wouldn’t it be great if this could become a regular series?

Anti-gay activists pounced immediately with their talking points when the Iowa Supreme Court released their opinion, but Right Wing Watch noticed that it took quite a while for anti-gay activists to react to the Vermont vote. Probably because couldn’t reflexively blame “activist judges.”

But several hours later, reactions slowly began to trickle in. So guess what? It’s not “activist judges,” it’s a breakdown in democracy. Focus On the Family detects a “mysterious” conspiracy afoot:

Thanks to several legislators who mysteriously changed their votes over the weekend, Vermont has become the first state to radically change the definition of marriage through the legislative process.

Sounds nefarious, doesn’t it. Like it’s some sort of threat to destroy democracy or something. The Liberty Counsel’s Matt Staver is also reading from the same playbook, calling a vote by two legislative chambers made up of duly elected representatives of the people “tyranny”:

By redefining marriage, the Vermont legislature removed the cornerstone of society and the foundation of government. The consequences will rest on their shoulders and upon those passive objectors who know what to do but lack the courage to stand against this form of tyranny.

The Catholic League’s reaction defines the word “apoplectic.” Vermont’s exercise in democracy apparently doesn’t count because it’s Vermont:

Vermont is a lily-white state populated by left-wingers who are anti-traditional marriage and anti-family. Exactly what we would expect of a population where more people believe in nothing than anywhere else in the nation.

But not everyone was on the same page. Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, took a different route.

The institution of marriage has predated the legislature and government and the United States, and it’s not the prerogative of anybody to redefine it. It is the prerogative of every state and U.S. citizen to uphold the institution as it has always been defined, as one man and one woman.”

As it was always defined? I think Nimocks needs to study up on his Bible, because just off the top of my head I know that King David, who unlike Nimocks was divinely appointment, had eight wives. Solomon had seven hundred.

Matt Barber isn’t thinking representative democracy either. He labors under the mistaken impression that we’re in a theocracy:

“How long can a nation founded on the laws of nature and nature’s God expect to find favor in his eyes when we continue to mock God?”

…”I believe that the purveyors of evil around the country feel emboldened right now with the current political climate in Washington, DC,” Barber states, what with both the Oval Office and Congress inhabited by “people who are bent on thumbing their nose at God.”

But at least we can count on Peter LaBarbera to know exactly where to lay the blame. It’s not activist judges or rogue legislators. It’s the American people:

A northeastern state, Vermont, has voted in homosexual “marriage” — through an override of the governor\’s veto, no less.  This profane legislative act cannot be blamed on reckless judges or “unelected courts.” No, this instead is reckless, godless liberalism in action…

Most Americans have gotten too comfortable with same-sex perversion (we at AFTAH reject the activist concept of innocuous, innate “sexual orientation”) and extramarital sex. … It\’s asking too much of God to “bless America” when America is blessing the counter-Biblical idea of state-sanctioned, homosexually-redefined “marriage.

Wingers On Parade: Reactions To Iowa

Today’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling, which struck down the portion of that state’s marriage law restricting marriage to heterosexuals, has provoked an entertaining assortment of reactions from the usual characters. Here are just a few examples.

First up, Matt Barber. He now has a title that is longer than the queen of England (“Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law”). I like his reaction because it fits perfectly with other ridiculous arguments which inspired the very name of this web site. Barber blathers:

U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.

That’s right. We now have the potted plant argument, which I guess is appropriate coming from him. Since the Box Turtle reference may be getting old, maybe we should rename this web site “Pansies for Pansies.com” in Barber’s honor.

Next up, Randy Thomasson. He’s demanding the most rigorous constitutional amendment ever devised by man or beast:

…Iowans should write a rock-solid marriage amendment, one that is much stronger than amendments in California, Oregon and Washington, which still allowed counterfeit marriages and immoral policies forcing insurance plans and private businesses to subsidize pseudo-marriages. Iowans should also take care to prevent the civil institution of marriage from being someday abolished, and must biologically define a man and a woman to ensure that the distinct, God-given genders of a husband and wife cannot be perverted.

owa Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) wants more than just a constitutional amendment. He also wants to prevent Iowa from becoming a “gay marriage Mecca”:

Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

Concerned Women for America aren’t interested in tinkering with laws or constitutions. Instead, they call for the establishment of a theocracy:

Until we rightly handle these issues in God’s house, we will continue to fail in the court house, the state house and the school house. George Washington warned us it would be impossible to rightly govern without the Bible, until we repent and return to those same principles, we will fail to properly govern and succeed as a nation.

And finally, our favorite. Peter LaBarbera gets a two-fer. First, there’s this post on his web site:

Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructible behaviors.

In LaBarbara’s mass email which also included the above statement, he added:

If the people do not respond in righteous anger coupled with effective action, the downfall of our beloved nation is assured — because God (who invented marriage) is not mocked.

Iowa protester Craig Overton (Rodney White / Des Moines Register)

You know, there’s a reason we have an award named for him. One excellent nominee for that award might be one Craig Overton, whose sign was so embarrassing to gay rights opponents that they urged him to put the sign down. It read “Same sex animals don’t mate. God Bless. Culver man up.” Overton refused to put the sign down.

Scott Lively: Following The Money

How is a well-known Holocaust revisionist able to gain so much cooperation among other anti-gay groups? Let’s follow the money.

Lively’s Pro Family Charitable Trust is an arm of his Abiding Truth Ministries, which is one of only twelve anti-gay hate groups listed by the the SPLC. A quick look at the trust’s contributions tell an interesting story:

• NARTH received three grants totalling $2000.
• The Jewish ex-gay group JONAH received a grant for $500.
• Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation received a grant for $500.
• Peter LaBarbera received two grants totally $2000.
• Watchmen On the Walls, a group that was co-founded by Lively, received a grant for $500. The Watchmen are also listed among the SPLC’s twelve anti-gay hate groups.
• Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute received a grant for $300. The FRI is another of the SPLC’s anti-gay hate groups.
• Exodus-Affiliated ministries receiving grants include Living Stones Ministry ($250), HIS Ministry ($500), and PFOX ($750).
• Other notable recipients include San Diego ex-gay gadfly James Hartline ($500), Stephen Bennett ($500) and Linda Harvey’s web site, Mission America ($400).

These must be considered minimum sums. The top grant is described as being the 31st grant on a page which only lists 28 grants, so this is clearly not a complete list.

It also appears not to be an up-to-date one either. Abiding Truth Ministry’s 2007 IRS 990 form (PDF; registration required) from Guidestar.org lists:

• an additional grant of $750 to Linda Harvey’s Mission America,
• an additional grant of $300 to James Hartline
• a grant of $1750 to the Pro Family Law Center in Temecula, California, a project of Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries.

Some of these values may not look like much, but most of these groups operate on a shoestring budget. Some are little more than volunteer operations much like our own vast conspiracy here at BTB (which consists only of a web site and four volunteers). So to many of these outfits, these contributions can be significant. Maybe that’s why Peter LaBarbera has been carrying Lively’s water the past few weeks.

[Hat tip: Warren Throckmorton]

Porno Pete Brings Deliverance To Ohio

Peter LaBarbera called out his minions to protest an S&M conference taking place in the Columbus, Ohio suburb of Worthington. Here’s who turned out:

“Is it a homo paper?” asked a scruffy 50+ man who spoke broken English with an Appalachian twang. In one hand he waved a large sign with the anagram “Gross Anus Yearning Sodomists” (whatever in the world that means) and in the other, he had two naked Ken dolls taped together in the position commonly referred to as “doggy style”.

(Imagine, a grown man buying two Ken dolls, stripping them down, brainstorming the most pornographic position for them, then taping them together. They were taped pretty tightly, too, with clear tape, so you know he spent a lot of time on it. This image would be hilarious if they weren’t so adamant about attributing their opinions to God himself.)

Now for the record, I grew up in Appalachia and I do still enjoy going home whenever I can. I’m not a fan of the stereotypes, and I always thought the movie Deliverance was little more than a 109-minute running cheap shot. But even though I still have something of an Appalachian twang left in me (at least, what hasn’t been corrupted by my fifteen years in Dallas), I’ll let that go this time. Go ahead and cue the banjos. He deserves it. He’s got less sense than God gave fleas.

The reporter continues:

…The two women picketing alongside him swarmed me. “If you hate this then you hate god!” said the first woman, brandishing her sign towards me. She preached the loudest of them all. As she also refused to give her name, and owning to her frazzled grey hair and pious hatred, we’ll call her Carrie’s Mom. (Seriously, her resemblance to the Stephen King character was uncanny.)

The second woman, who looked like your grandma only with a heart full of hate, was more diplomatic in her explanation of the protest. “We don’t hate homos,” she explained, her voice full of pity. “We just don’t like them having a conference here.”

Because The Peter was coy with the facts, his faithful readership had their own facts completely screwed up. The S&M conference full of “homos” they were all upset about? It’s actually being put on and attended mostly by heterosexuals. In other words, it’s mostly straight people who are doing god-knows-what in a closed off wing of the hotel with three layers of security so no wandering innocents could accidentally stumble in  — yet it’s “the homos” who are getting the blame.

Yes, I know. Buried in there somewhere, The Peter belatedly acknowledged that this isn’t “a homo” event. But when all you talk about is homosexuals and you name your keyboard “Americans For Truth About Homosexuality” with no apparent ironic intent, and you talk about this event without actually describing who is putting it on and who is attending it, then you can’t be too surprised if some of your readers draw their own conclusions.

Which may be why “Carrie’s Mom” sees this event as more evidence of the end of days:

“There’s other people who are going to use those conference rooms!” she said, her hysteria almost tangible. “This kind of behavior will bring a civilization to its knees–with the baby killing and the sodomy!” she said, quoting scripture verses and shaking her head at me. She cited the current economic crises as proof that “the homos” were single-handedly responsible for the near-collapse of Capitalism and the global economic system.

Good Lord! As my great-great aunt used to say, these people don’t have one particle bit of sense. From now on, whenever I see The Peter use the word “Deliverance” in connection with homosexuality, it will always have a completely new meaning.

Smart crowd you draw there, Pete. You made ’em madder’n a wet hen. I’d think you’d be proud of yourself for being so influential. So why are you suddenly acting so embarrassed?

Heterosexual Menace: The Real Threat In Schools

Peter LaBarbera has his hair on fire over openly gay Ron Huberman being named CEO of Chicago’s public schools. He’s afraid that Huberman’s appointment will send a message that being gay is “normative to impressionable Chicago students.” Perhaps LaBarbera should show more concern about some very direct messages — in the form of text messages — that some educators are sending to young impressionable students:

49-year-old female teacher from a Phoenix elementary school was arrested at a hotel Saturday after luring a 14-year-old boy there through text messages that portrayed herself as a sexually active teenager, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Rosanna Brown of Chandler, an English teacher at Ed Pastor Elementary School, 2101 W. Alta Vista Road, admitted to having sexual relations with the boy, according to the sheriff’s office.

… Brown had checked into the hotel on Saturday and when the boy arrived at the hotel, he claimed the room was dark, and believed he was having sex with a teenage girl, [Sheriff Joe] Arpaio said. But then the boy realized it was his English teacher, Arpaio told the Tribune.

You can read more about the misery and emptiness of the heterosexual lifestyle here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Newsweek Essay Draws Howls of Protest

Anti-gay activists are pulling their hair out over Lisa Miller’s essay in Newsweek, in which she lays out a religious case for same-sex marriage. She opens her essay by saying, “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

As you can imagine, that didn’t go over well with one particular segment of Christianity. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family Board of Directors, wrote:

Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda [of allowing same-sex marriage] is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.”

That was one of the calmer reactions. Tony Perkins of the Family “Research” Council denounced it as “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.” The Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association called it “one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization.” Not surprisingly, he also is calling on his followers to inundate Newsweek with emails.

And Peter LaBarbera, not one to be outdone, called the essay a “scandalous hit piece” and an “embarrassing attempt to make a Biblical case for sodomy-based ‘marriage.'” (See why we have an award named in his honor?) And Peter’s pal, Matt Barber responded, “You know, scripture says woe to those who call evil good and good evil, and I say woe to Newsweek for even printing this drivel.”

Part of the outrage stems from the fact that anti-gay activists have tried for years to couch their opposition to same-sex marriage on sociological research to make their point — research that, as we have pointed out many times, they have distorted with amazing consistency. But by calling on science instead of the Bible, they seek to inoculate themselves from charges of trying to impose their religious views on others. “See? We’re not religious zealots. Science supports us,” they like to say. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, repeated this line in saying, “The arguments that are used are often not biblical arguments. They are secular arguments, arguing about marriage as being a civic and a social institution, and that societies have a right to define marriage.” And Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, claimed, “We’re not trying to take the Bible and put a bill number on it and legislate it.”

But when they are talking among themselves, religious arguments are firmly at the fore, whether it’s LDS Elder M. Russell Ballard speaking of the “central doctrine of eternal marriage” or Richard Land himself explaining with an apparently straight face that what he calls the global warning “hoax” is simply due to “cycles of nature that God has allowed in the cosmos.” Neither of these positions sound very scientific to me.

But the religious face is not the public face that these religiously-motivated leaders want to present. And by having to respond to Lisa Miller’s essay, they are forced to publicly defend the religious basis for their beliefs, which annoys a few of them to no end.  Watch how Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse pivots when asked about the Newsweek essay:

“Beyond the Scriptural distortion, the article distorts the pro-marriage and pro-family movement that is solidly grounded on sociological research about family structures that contribute to the well-being of women and children.”

She then goes on to mischaracterize what “experts agree.”

But the other part of the outrage also seems clearly aimed at someone who really did intrude onto their home turf. After all, in the same-sex marriage debates, only one small group of Christians are presumed to be allowed to use the Bible — when they think nobody else is looking. Anti-gay activists behave as though the Bible is solely their possession and no one else’s — including other Christians who read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. It’s okay for anti-gay opponents to turn outside their own sphere of authority — science — to make their point. But now that Lisa Miller has taken them on in their own home turf, they’ve let loose with their persecution complex and complained that they– and by extension all of Christianity, since they presume to speak for all Christians — have been “attacked.” 

Which reminds me of a great and appropriate graphic making its way around the Internet:

Folsom Street Fair Organizers Make Questionable Claim Against Americans For Truth

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth and I may disagree on pretty much everything related to sexuality but something we both share is the fact we’re activists who rely on “fair-use” to expose and analyze things in the world we find objectionable.

In a recent analysis of Folsom, LaBarbera posted a digital copy of a congratulatory letter from Mayor Newsom to Folsom organizers as a one page excerpt from Folsom’s 2008 Program Guide which he found particularly offensive and illustrated the focus of his analysis.

Folsom organizers took issue with this apparently as their attorney sent LaBarbera a cease and desist letter claiming intellectual property infringement. LaBarbera, aided by the American Family Association’s General Counsel fired back calling their bluff, citing the “fair-use” clause of copyright law.

In this case I agree with Pete. Folsom’s lawyers are full of shit.

Specifically, the letter from Mayor Newsom is not Folsom’s property, it was written by someone at the Mayor’s office and is a matter of public record in the public domain. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act misrepresenting ownership of intellectual property puts the person making the false-claim at risk. Per Wikipedia:

anyone who makes a false claim of infringement or false counter-notification is liable for the damages suffered by the other parties

It appears the only thing Folsom organizers have succeeded in is giving the appearance of legitimizing Mr. LaBarbera’s attacks on them by allowing him to paint himself as the victim.

I contacted Folsom organizers to see if their side of the story differed from Pete’s — our email exchange is below:

I’m a pro-gay activist and write for a website called BoxTurtleBulletin.com which tracks and monitors the religious right. Recently it came to my attention that the anti-gay group Americans For Truth is claiming your lawyers sent them a cease and desist letter relating to their use of Folsom St. Fair promotional materials. The full article is online here:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/so-much-for-leather-pride-folsom-
organizers-try-to-stop-aftah-from-exposing-their-vile-event.html

Based solely on Peter LaBarbera’s account it appears he is well within the realm of fair-use and your lawyer’s claims have no ground are designed only to intimidate him.

Before blogging on this I would appreciate your side of the story.

Thanks,
Daniel Gonzales

Folsom’s response:

Daniel,

Thanks for your email. While AFTAH claims fair use, that doesn’t mean it is fair use. There are specific legal criteria by which fair use is gauged. And, there are actually pretty severe limits placed on the amount of a work that can be reproduced under the fair use rule. We state clearly in our Guide: “Reproduction in whole or in part without permission…is prohibited.” That said, we apparently disagree on the issue which is why we are pursuing it. There is no intimidation involved here.

Demetri Moshoyannis
Executive Director

LaBarbera’s Incoherence on Hate Crimes

Peter LaBarbera thinks that the media attention surrounding the Knoxville shooting “proves” that hate crime laws aren’t necessary. According to the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow:

The pro-family advocate adds that the homosexual movement gets favorable treatment within the media, and LaBarbera says with that type of coverage there is no need for special legislation to “give more attention and better treatment to this case.” He adds that with the media spotlight on the incident, “it proves our case” that hate crimes laws are not necessary.

The tortured logic behind this statement is astounding. LaBarbera constantly complains that gays are getting “favorable treatment” in the media. Now he says that gays don’t need hate crime protections because of that treatment. But if the media acted the way LaBarbera wants them to act — by only portraying gays and lesbians in a negative light — would he then agree that maybe hate crime protections are warranted? Don’t count on it.

Besides, here’s a news flash for LaBarbera. The FBI is already investigating this as a hate crime.

Why? According to Stacie Bohanan, spokeswoman for the FBI’s Knoxville division, “Anytime someone uses force to obstruct another person in the free exercise of their religious beliefs, that becomes a violation of the federal civil rights statutes.”

And according to police reports, it certainly appears that Jim David Adkisson targeted the church because of its “liberal” beliefs, which just happen to include a safe and welcoming haven for gays and transgender people.

So ironically, if authorities decide that Adkisson is guilty of a hate crime, it will be because he committed a crime based on the victim’s religious beliefs, which is protected. It’s the same protection that everyone enjoys, not just religious minorities. In 2006, the FBI recorded 62 anti-Protestant hate crime incidents. Last I checked, Protestants were hardly a persecuted minority. But when the law covers religion, it covers all religions — even atheists.

But if this same shooting had happened instead at an LGBT community center, the FBI would nowhere in sight. The same crime targeted against a different community would be treated very differently under the law.

Now if people like LaBarbera were arguing that there should be no hate crime laws period, then that would be different. But I don’t see him arguing that. He’s only arguing that existing laws should not be extended to cover violent and property crimes motivated by sexual orientation. He claims that doing so would be some sort of “special” treatment under the law.

Well, as the law stands today, it is special treatment. LaBarbera’s religious beliefs are protected under current hate crime laws.

And even if the law were changed to extend protections based on sexual orientation, LaBarbera would still be protected — perhaps even moreso. Because if he is ever straight-bashed in a violent crime or a property crime — as 28 other heterosexuals were in 2006, then the law would be there to protect him too.

But as long as The Peter continues to agitate against hate crime protections based on sexual orientation — and let’s add gender identity and expression while we’re at it — while complaining about “anti-Christian” persecution, then the only thing he’s interested in is keeping “special protections” all for himself. And with that argument, he’s either showing his ignorance or his hatred. Pick one.